R VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Bank') in disqualifying the petitioner for appointment to the post of Messenger on the ground of possessing higher educational qualification as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and consequently direct the Bank to absorb the petitioner as Sub-staff in the Bank.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Messenger in the Bank for a period of 45 days on different days between 19-1-1987 to 31-12-1987 and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Branch Manager, State of Bank of India, Challagarige, and also worked on different dates till 27-1-1989. It is stated that the Bank has issued a notification to fill-up the vacancies including the post of Messenger on permanent basis, and in response thereto the petitioner applied for the post of Messenger. It is further stated that the petitioner after unsuccessfully waiting to receive any communication in that behalf from the Bank, made enquiries and came to know that since he is a matriculate his case was not considered. Aggrieved by the said restriction imposed by the Bank on possessing higher educational qualification, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, it is stated that as the petitioner had passed 10th class prior to his temporary engagement in the Bank, inasmuch as the eligibility prescribed for the post of Messenger is non-matriculation, but a pass in 8th class, his case for selection to the said post was not considered and therefore no exception can be taken for not considering his case. It is further stated that the recruitment policy of the Bank is that candidates who have passed 10th class examination are not entitled to apply or be considered for the post of Messenger, that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary basis for a period of 45 days and that by itself does not entitle him to any right, muchless under any express provision of law, to claim permanent absorption in the Bank as a matter of right. That in pursuance of the agreement entered with All India State Bank of India Staff Federation, under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bank had agreed to give a chance for certain persons who had been engaged on a temporary basis for permanent absorption provided they fulfil the eligibility norms prescribed by the Bank for such permanent absorption. That the petitioner did not conform to the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification, as such, he was not called for interview.